I have always had problems with tree ring proxy studies. Temperature is only one indicator in tree growth. Many other factors contribute to the rate of growth. Light, water, soil conditions, altitude, absence or presents of insect pests or larger animals, etc. If a tree ring study says it was warmer or cooler in the past or present I am skeptical.

I have always had problems with tree ring proxy studies. Temperature is only one indicator in tree growth. Many other factors contribute to the rate of growth. Light, water, soil conditions, altitude, absence or presents of insect pests or larger animals, etc. If a tree ring study says it was warmer or cooler in the past or present I am skeptical.

Quote:

The finding fits with other proxies for temperature – such as the chemical make-up of air trapped in glaciers and the organic remains in ancient lake sediments – which have also suggested a cooling trend.

They also say that the CO2 increase has reversed this cooling so we could get back to the good old days of growing vines in York.

From the article:"Jan Esper of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, thinks that at least some of those tree rings actually show something else: a long-term cooling trend that lasted right up until the Industrial Revolution. The trend came about because of reduced solar heating caused by changes to the Earth's orbit known as Milankovitch wobbles, says Esper. His results suggest the Roman world was 0.6 °C warmer than previously thought – enough to make grape vines in northern England a possibility.

Esper and his colleagues say that warmer summers do not necessarily make tree rings wider – but they often make them denser. He studied the density of tree rings in hundreds of northern Scandinavian trees and found that they showed evidence of a gradual cooling trend that began around 2000 years ago.

The finding fits with other proxies for temperature – such as the chemical make-up of air trapped in glaciers and the organic remains in ancient lake sediments – which have also suggested a cooling trend."Anyone well versed in geology knows we are supposed to be cooling down, and northern hemisphere increase in snow/ice season, leading to higher albedo and then the ~90,000 year ice age. This cooling trend stopped when fossil fuels began to be burned in abundance. Since 1950 it has begun an upward hyperbolic zooming upward after 1980, then more after 2000.The trend now is toward skipping this ice age entirely, unless Yellowstone super volcano, or another similar one, erupts and aerosols cool down the atmosphere ~10*F for an number of years. In just a few centuries even this will not reverse the warming trend toward AETM. From PETM studies, and the increase in sequestered carbon being released, this would eliminate probably two ice ages, and one interglacial----200K years until the carbon is re-sequestered, then another 2 or more million until biodiversity is returned.Sure, the wine growing region is shifting north, but not many will be growing vines after the population crash of mid century. Then, in a few hundred years it will have shifted too far north, then off the planet. So, drink your wine and pretend it isn't happening-------while you can.I wonder if those seeds stored on that Norwegian Island will be viable in 200K years, and if anyone will be around to open the locked door.

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

I have always had problems with tree ring proxy studies. Temperature is only one indicator in tree growth. Many other factors contribute to the rate of growth. Light, water, soil conditions, altitude, absence or presents of insect pests or larger animals, etc. If a tree ring study says it was warmer or cooler in the past or present I am skeptical.

Nice post.

The warmers are now going to concede that Tree ring studies are unreliable, since Esper's study is quite inconvienient for those trying to maintain that the 20th Century Global Warming was truly anomalous.

I have always had problems with tree ring proxy studies. Temperature is only one indicator in tree growth. Many other factors contribute to the rate of growth. Light, water, soil conditions, altitude, absence or presents of insect pests or larger animals, etc. If a tree ring study says it was warmer or cooler in the past or present I am skeptical.

Nice post.

The warmers are now going to concede that Tree ring studies are unreliable, since Esper's study is quite inconvienient for those trying to maintain that the 20th Century Global Warming was truly anomalous.

No, that is not the case since other proxy systems have reached similar conclusions. We will, of course, call you on the hypocrisy of trying to use this study for any data reference given the ranting over tree ring studies.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

No, that is not the case since other proxy systems have reached similar conclusions. We will, of course, call you on the hypocrisy of trying to use this study for any data reference given the ranting over tree ring studies.

No, many other proxy reconstructions have come to the conclusion that there was a MWP, and it was as warm or warmer than the present.

No, that is not the case since other proxy systems have reached similar conclusions. We will, of course, call you on the hypocrisy of trying to use this study for any data reference given the ranting over tree ring studies.

No, many other proxy reconstructions have come to the conclusion that there was a MWP, and it was warmer than the present.

Why not list the other two papers from the same group whose findings contradict the temperature reconstructions in this one from the huge distance of 30 meters away from this site.

Quote:

Quite the nasty tone in your last sentence. Why would I claim something and then pull off a double standard like you have done with correlating various forcing variables to temperatures?

The "you" was the general term not the specific term, unless you are going to say these tree rings are acceptable while the other tree rings are not. If that is the case, I will point out your personal hypocrisy.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Quite the nasty tone in your last sentence. Why would I claim something and then pull off a double standard like you have done with correlating various forcing variables to temperatures?

Care to try to explain what double standard I have used with correlating forcing variables to temperature? I say try because I have not used a double standard at all. However, I cannot say the same for your presentations. Specifically the repearted attempts to claim causation due to correlation with no mechanisms evidenced to connect the supposed cause to the observed effect.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

No, that is not the case since other proxy systems have reached similar conclusions. We will, of course, call you on the hypocrisy of trying to use this study for any data reference given the ranting over tree ring studies.

No, many other proxy reconstructions have come to the conclusion that there was a MWP, and it was as warm or warmer than the present.

No, that is not the case since other proxy systems have reached similar conclusions. We will, of course, call you on the hypocrisy of trying to use this study for any data reference given the ranting over tree ring studies.

No, many other proxy reconstructions have come to the conclusion that there was a MWP, and it was as warm or warmer than the present.

The two periods from 1000-1500 do not look anything alike yet they are from the same group in the same cave about 30 meters apart using the same procedures and not coming up with anything remotely similar in reconstruction. Really a strong case for that claim don't you think?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein